Curious about the maximum magnification. B&H lists .15x, the same as the 400f2.8, but it has a much shorter minimum focus distance than the 400f2.8.

The 70-300L and 70-200/2.8L IS II both have the same MFD and maximum magnification, despite the former being 100mm longer. Since focal length is specified at infinity, the 70-300L must have a lot more focus breathing, seems the 200-400L does as well.

Silly price, 45% more than Nikkons offerring . If this was reasonably priced, around $7500 may have considered it, I think I'll rather save $1000+ and go with a lighter weight and longer reach 500mm, or a faster 400 2.8.

I would think that this lens would be the best 'wildlife' lens around. It might be heavy, but you can frame your shots quickly. And it would be easier to spot and track moving animals with the 200mm and then zooming in.

...why for the convenience of having a built-in extender someone would pay so much for a relatively slow lense.

I wouldn't call the 400 f/4 combo "relatively slow", even if it was referred to a prime lens; I'd love a 400 f/4 IS prime. Being a zoom, I'd rather say the 200-400 f/4 is pretty fast. Price will drop considerably in a couple of years, anyway.

I've been hoping that the rumoured price was wrong.Nikon's 200-400 is less expensive than their 500mm f4. I was hoping Canon's price structure would be similar.

I like the concept of the 200-400mm 1.4x, but not at the price. When i get a big white it wil either be the 500mm f4 or the 300mm f2.8 with the 2xIIIl

My thoughts are very similar, but this lens definitely has its place. One angle that could be taken in justifying the purchase is if the lens does as well as two separate cameras in following a subject through medium to long distances. That's probably $4K savings right there if you're someone who would be using two cameras otherwise.Maybe a bit niche, but it's basically a no-brainer for anyone shooting sports during the day.

Silly price, 45% more than Nikkons offerring . If this was reasonably priced, around $7500 may have considered it, I think I'll rather save $1000+ and go with a lighter weight and longer reach 500mm, or a faster 400 2.8.

Curious about the maximum magnification. B&H lists .15x, the same as the 400f2.8, but it has a much shorter minimum focus distance than the 400f2.8.

The 70-300L and 70-200/2.8L IS II both have the same MFD and maximum magnification, despite the former being 100mm longer. Since focal length is specified at infinity, the 70-300L must have a lot more focus breathing, seems the 200-400L does as well.

It's a common issue with modern tele-zooms. It's one aspect (along with increased flare and bokeh nevousness) where primes tend to excel over zooms. The same focus breathing also happens with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS to a large amount, about 20% taking it's real focal length down to around 240mm at MFD. The Canon 70-300L looses nearly 1/3 of it's focal length at MFD and is quite astonishly short....but it's IQ at that close focus is extraordinarily good, far better that my 70-200 f2.8 L IS II. I guess every lens is compromised somewhere in the design path. The new 200-400L has a few design questions, Canon have been very coy about releasing it's MFD / MM specs until now. I'm wondering if someone was to pop this new lens on a test bench and work out it's real focal length at MFD would be shockingly low. It may have the same MM as a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II, but a user would be twice as close to achieve it unless something is really compromised in the design in this particular spec. I think it's not enough to discount this lens as an admirable optic and one which can offer some serious wildlife and spots photographers a real world advantage, especially in harsh conditions. I just think it's not possible to create a "it has it all" tele lens. Lets face it, it's quite heavy, large and expensive compared to the new 500mm f4 L IS II. But it's a lot more versatile. I seriously doubt that this new Canon version isn't very different to the Nikon variation in this respect.

Silly price, 45% more than Nikkons offerring . If this was reasonably priced, around $7500 may have considered it, I think I'll rather save $1000+ and go with a lighter weight and longer reach 500mm, or a faster 400 2.8.

The street price will drop at least 2500 in a few months...

Yes, because that's exactly what happened with the MkII supertele primes.

Oh, wait...it didn't. The 600 II did drop...by $200, a whopping 1.5% decrease. Woo hoo. The 300 II dropped a bit more. If you expect this lens to drop by 20% in a few months, I hear there's big bridge for sale in New York that might interest you.